Some time ago I had a series of very deeply resonating experiences, based on the revelation of certain items from new developments in astrophysics and astronomy. People from all ages past have been fascinated by the developing insight into the vastness of the universe, and that lead to increasing perks into the almost dreamy depths of the skies.

Even the thought of temporal relative senses of how insignificant our.planet earth is becoming, sends shudders down my spine.

The existence of a black hole in the center of a galaxy , very far away, has come to be assessed as a super massive black hole, its size equal to 20 billions of our suns. Further, this is only a measure of the latest discovery of that part of the universe containing that galaxy, which has evolved through the merging of multiple black holes, creating quasars.

In that particular super massive black hole, an infrared reproduction captured this monstrosity rating it , millions the size of our sun. This black hole in this particular galaxy, consists of 50% of the galaxy.

Now the sudden explosiveness of this fact . is so stunning that in my mind at least, it created quantum moment. The whole question of matter\energy can be thought in terms of limits, containing near absolutes, and the near absolute's resistance to the realization of an absolute Absolute.

The only conclusion I was able to fathom is, that the conventional absolute reduces ever higher ratios of containment, of one absolute in another, as a measure of space-time.

The ultimate reduction through this regressiveness leaves, again hypothetically, a very minimum constructive conceptual realization , approaching a minimal particle which can be conceived.That it is what they call the God Partical nowadays, and it shows the amount of interest and expenditure Cern has cost humanity in search of IT.

My contention is, that its impossible on that level to find it, and its not because as is often supposed, that there really is no absolute minimum( because of the thousands of years of Greek paradoxical construction of supposing no end to halving toward,( any minimum quantity, )but that existential considerations configured reversely. IT,Could not have been sustained [bracketed], were it not for the conception of an absolute Absolute.(Being).

Getting back to the progressive fusing of multiple black holes, today's technology has as much limit as the measure of feasibility would allow, further, say if we survive as a human species in the future here and now, its possible that more and more, ever larger black holes will become perceivable, maybe in an age of super optically linked intelligence.

Even then, the idea of an absolute Absolute, consisting of a single Entity, neither energy nor matter(the way its now described) must be a conceptual necessity.

Why? Because, otherwise the difference would not have any basis.

The real nothingness of Heidegger and Sartre and Cantor would be precluded. I wish we still had ST James here to elucidate, but Leibnitz' two spheres comes to mind as he struggled with this. The only REASON he(Leibnitz) came up with this idea is, that difference being necessary to create not merely the idea, but the reality of that cosmological idea.

If there is no difference, in all the formal elements of that description, Being and Existence would be a mute process, where the process is included within the idea.

The idea is so unique in the cosmos, that its potential energy approaches an absolute, which eats up the diverse IT'SELF, similarly as a black hole does.

The Idea of a limitless black hole rating up all , matter energy, is inconceivable because here we are, here I/you exist, as a possible singularity, a testament to Being.

That is so profound, that if its conclusions, even if, proposed over the course if human history by intuitive philosophers, mystics, saints and gods themselves, must preserve the difference between the extremely small and large.

And that is what the essence of an idea preserves, and calls it Faith. Without faith, evolution would have been inconceivable, so much power does the downward power of negation appear to nihilize the acquisition of human intelligence, as surging toward the super intelligent being.(The downward pessimistic pressure of limits by empirical means, would overcome the mobilization((the Nothingness of Being)) ) But it can't.

That power has to be an absolute, because it was still a divisible perepherouslunch involved-or participaterial entity, it would dissipate its power at the point where Descartes doubted his own sanity, with the concept of an Evil Genius.

This is how Descartes was misindetstood, and that is why God's reason for creation still holds water.

Is God an Insane proposition to ward off personal insanity, as others have testified to?(Holderlin, Cantor, Nietzsche-& others )giving dangerous testimony or plainly killed for this reason-then this becomes such an apt analogy to the Cosmic Absolute, that the merging of the two becoming a neccesity so sublime , as to be able to be apprehended only by those Masters , who have perhaps reached a point in their evolution, that has become beyond comparison.

Meno_ wrote:..Is God an Insane proposition to ward off personal insanity, as others have testified to?(Holderlin, Cantor, Nietzsche-& others )giving dangerous testimony or plainly killed for this reason-then this becomes such an apt analogy to the Cosmic Absolute, that the merging of the two becoming a neccesity so sublime , as to be able to be apprehended only by those Masters , who have perhaps reached a point in their evolution, that has become beyond comparison.

My thesis is 'God is an impossibility' and the idea of God emerged from a very primal psychological need to deal with an existential crisis or existential dilemma.

I wrote this in the other post;

The point is the reification tendency is a very primal instinct and Kant warned;

Kant in CPR wrote:They [illusions reified, e.g. God, Soul] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. b397

Kant then [1700s] did not have the modern psychological, psychiatric and neural knowledge but his above point of an embedded primal instinct was alluding to such modern ideas.

Because such a godly impulse is inherent in all and active in most humans I would not use the term 'insane' [literally reserved for the exceptions].However the real 'insane' patients often had the most glaring experiences of a God;

In other cases the experiences of God can be induced by drugs and other means.

People also experienced God during bouts of illness or brain damage.

If God is really real, why God is not appearing to the majority in a glaringly, obvious, indisputable manner but so obvious to the insane, drug addicts and the sick.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Good question. I would hazard that God as existence or nonexistence can not be differentiable per 'existence' for pretty much the same kind of reason as , to neg the question of ' to be or not to be'; meaning existence and being are sub questions to the unitary concept of 'essence'.

The essential thrust of life is not one open to why, what, where and when , but IT, and the most satisfactory answer comes from the verb 'IS.'. Is is a transcendence which is really an imminent all pervasive acceptance for the need to understand IT in twrmsnodntjw transcendental 'reason' for is to understand, if by that , the it can transcendnots own understanding of It's own self.

Even if such necessity for consciesness of the self demonstrates its own beginning and end, whereas it is eternal.

Transcendental Reason is the filter through which the eternal and the undifferential absolute can be realized. Without that, the degradation to an animal memory of minimum capacity could not have jumped to the next evolutionary level. Transcendence does not exist in animals anocd the basic minimum, and if Darwin was alive today, how would be answer the question of the evolution of consciousness? Could he characterize it as a slowly evolving process , or like a quantum jump into a higher realm of capacity?

He couldn't , using the scientific method because that method would entail itself into tautology.

Such uncertainty can't very well base a theory of consciousness, only through Determinancy could begin to explain the beginning of self realisation. And that is the foundation of the WILL, which is the most crucial component of both: the mind of men and of God.

The man-god idea defines the necessary difference between the logical duality , any way looked at, of life, which simply can not do without.

Man in all creation part takes in goal setting , and it is from that, that the will to be forms the idea.

Whether the idea is formed through the will, or, the will causes the formal conceived image of perfection is again a non differentiable paradox, stemming from the earliest ages of man.

Meno_ wrote:Good question. I would hazard that God as existence or nonexistence can not be differentiable per 'existence' for pretty much the same kind of reason as , to neg the question of ' to be or not to be'; meaning existence and being are sub questions to the unitary concept of 'essence'.

The essential thrust of life is not one open to why, what, where and when , but IT, and the most satisfactory answer comes from the verb 'IS.'. Is is a transcendence which is really an imminent all pervasive acceptance for the need to understand IT in twrmsnodntjw transcendental 'reason' for is to understand, if by that , the it can transcendnots own understanding of It's own self.

One point, "is" is merely a copula, i.e. a linker of words.

In linguistics, a copula (plural: copulas or copulae; abbreviated cop) is a word used to link the subject of a sentence with a predicate (a subject complement), such as the word is in the sentence "The sky is blue." The word copula derives from the Latin noun for a "link" or "tie" that connects two different things.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(linguistics)

In philosophy Kant argued for the point, "is" is merely a copula.

Heidegger argued being and existence cannot be "IT" or "whatness."

The above disclose the weakness of language to get to where we think we want to get to.

That is when Heidegger gave up on language and resorted to poetry to understand being.

Note Zen Buddhism uses nonsensical language, i.e. paradoxical koans, e.g. what is the sound of one hand clapping, etc. to break through to realize being.

Many philosophers had demonstrated the limitation of language and even literal philosophy in understanding being. I believe the most effective way to understand 'existence' is to 'know thyself', i.e. our own human psychology and its primary problems and thus resolve [as best as possible] that existential problem. This is what Buddhism-proper and others of the likes are doing.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.